Virtual Worlds Are Relatively Safe Havens for LGBT People -- But Many Concerns Remain (Comment of the Week)

A reader who signs themself "LGBT+ anon" throws some important and necessary cold water on my tribute to virtual worlds as safe havens for LGBT people:

Virtual worlds are surely helpful to LGBT+ people, gender expression and more, and in general I agree, but since we are talking about safety and "safe havens" after this election, I think it's important a word of caution. Apart from some abusive people you could meet also in virtual worlds, I won't feel safe with USA-based Internet companies, as David Bell said, even less now and in the next years.

Second Life is an especially bad case: communication is still sent plain-text and it's logged, with anything you did and where you did go. They keep the info for long, also the employees access to those logs, your other data and your inventory. That's for tech support, but also to investigate abuse reports. For those purposes it is fine, right? Except it's well known... that US government agencies spied on virtual worlds, among which Second Life.

Now, think about all this under a hostile government. Yikes!

More from LGBT+ anon and my reply after the break:

And remember who is backing Trump now, it's not just Trump, Musk financed him, and used ex-Twitter to spew misinformation, he doesn't even care for his children and he's really against trans people; his trans daughter now wants to leave the United States.

Also on Second Life, even though you would be usually welcome, not all the users are LGBT+ friendly. Not counting trolls, anti-LGBT+ profiles aren't so rare, and they too spew misinformation and hate. Not just random avatars, but well established ones, some with their own land, Trump propaganda signs, also some community and several creators as well. A notorious vehicle builder was even calling for the death of woke people (she used a slur in place of people)... [an SL group] has been systematically harassed for years by their neighbors, until about 2021, you can ask them. Other dudes are less obvious at first, but then they tell toxic or hateful things. At one point, I decided to only go to LGBT+ places in SL.

But a popular place had to put a "no politics" sign, because some of this happened there as well. Certain SL residents, who are clearly not LGBT+ friendly, often engage in the forums, skirting the rules and making it difficult to discuss trans topics, which frequently leads to threads being locked.

On the plus side, as you said, in a virtual world, this stuff won't be algorithmically recommended based on your past views, but it is definitely present.

So, although virtual worlds are surely beneficial for LGBT+ people, I think it's important to stay careful. Now even more, on US-based virtual worlds.

This is all generally true. I'd quibble on the point about US government agencies "spying" on virtual worlds, as it was more like an initial look-see in the wake of 9/11 after credible reports that violent extremists were using Second Life and other virtual worlds to plan and communicate in; in any case, important to keep in mind that government agencies of all kinds around the world are monitoring all popular Internet services. Virtual worlds are probably on the lower priority list, since they're less mass market than social media platforms, and have more user friction both for bad actors and government authorities. (Their focus is more on Discord as opposed to online games/virtual worlds themselves.)

And unlike other Internet services, as I noted, the companies in the virtual world category have a more direct, special incentive to protect the privacy of its LBGT population, since they're such a large part of the user group. (Up to 1 in 5, if my VRChat survey holds up.) In my experience, virtual world company culture also tends to be highly LBGT friendly, and boast a disproportionately high number of LGBT people on staff -- not just because they're usually based in the San Francisco Bay Area and other liberal parts of the US, but also because these employees tend to have heavy representation of people who are virtual world users themselves.  

But all that to one side, LGBT+ anon is very right when they say there's much more to be done to make virtual worlds even safer safe havens, and above all: Stay careful, especially now. 

Image from Cajsa's guest post, For the Trans Community of Second Life, the Virtual World is a Chance to Discover Their Real Life Selves.

Please support posts like these by buying Making a Metaverse That Matters and joining my Patreon!

Become a member!

Comments

[Love Yourself]

"Now, think about all this under a hostile government. Yikes!"

More propaganda and fear mongering into the minds of already vulnerable people dealing with their own traumas and disabilities. Don't you get tired of it, or is your "audience" really that profitable that you keep on going?

Set an example and do better Hamlet.

[True love extends beyond oneself]

Trump's stance on trans people and the LGBT+ community is undeniably hostile. Those who claim otherwise are often the ones under the influence of propaganda, gaslighting the public into ignoring the clear evidence.

[LGBT+ anon]

Trump's previous administration has been marked by misleading rhetoric and actions that undermine LGBT+ rights. Now they have spent nearly $215 million on ads against what they call 'transgender insanity' this election cycle. Women's rights in general, not only LGBT+ women's rights, are also at stake. It's not a "maybe tomorrow" situation. They have already begun, they are doing it, and they promise to do more. States with Republican leadership have been following suit for years now, pushing policies that dismantle protections and roll back rights.

Trump's campaign thrives on hate and misinformation. LGBT+ people (and other minorities) become scapegoats and are tangibly targeted. This hostility, as well as attempts to demoralize LGBT+ supporters, is a well-documented pattern of behavior and aligns with Russian propaganda.

Globally, we're seeing a resurgence of anti-LGBT+ sentiment, with some countries criminalizing LGBT+ identities once again. If you are part of a targeted community, it's worse without adequate data protection.

Plain text communication is inherently unsafe. The fact that US government agencies have targeted virtual worlds, even if considered low priority, proves that such surveillance happens, depending on who the perceived enemy is. With Trump's campaign, gender identity issues are often called a 'dangerous ideology' to uproot, and he is notorious for his deranged policies. Who would have expected attempts to undermine net neutrality outside of authoritarian regimes? And yet here we are.

Maybe Trump will pass the next four years just playing golf and telling nonsense, and I'm sure the Lab employees are generally very friendly (though bad apples have shown up) and I agree also about San Francisco Bay Area. However, this situation and these patterns are not reassuring. US companies already have weaker data protection than the EU, and new deranged policies that companies would have to follow could undermine what we have taken for granted until now.

In any case, if targeted, and it's not just the USA, users in Second Life could be easily compromised due to the lack of encryption. I think Second Life implementing encryption would be a good idea and essential for user safety.

[LGBT+ anon]

Thank you, Wagner, for supporting women, the LGBT+ community, other minorities, and everyone who finds help and comfort in virtual worlds.

[Iggy 1.0]

It is not fear-mongering to worry about this, but I'd be less worried about SL and more worried about a Constitutional Convention under Article V. To quote from Common Cause:

"the group of people convening to rewrite our Constitution could be totally unelected and unaccountable. There is nothing that could limit the convention to a single issue, so the delegates could write amendments that revoke any of our most cherished rights – like our right to peaceful protest, our freedom of religion, or our right to privacy. There are also no rules preventing corporations from pouring money into the convention to ensure they get their way."

If that happens, we have no guarantee of a suspension of the Bill of Rights under a theocratic or for-life autocratic US government. With that outcome, no online havens would exist for US citizens. That would become a Cyberpunk fantasy.

All citizens need to read the original text of Article V from Madison's day and study the history recently.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html

Yes, the threat is that grave, and it's possible. The consequences are in the realm of speculative fiction, but not pretty. Enough states (Red and Blue) have already voted for a Convention that we may see one. Six more need to approve the motion and we'll have a Convention.

I can only hope the next President is busy mass-deporting immigrants, posting to the X Cesspool, and punishing enemies that he does not realize what he could do to finish his vile work. More here:

https://www.commoncause.org/work/stopping-a-dangerous-article-v-convention/

The Founders would be rolling in their graves, even Jefferson who favored limited government. As he told Madison in a letter in 1789, Madison feared the rule of a single person (a king) where Jefferson feared the rule of the few (an oligarchy).

I fear that could be were the nation is headed; the world would feel the effects.

[Candice Candy]

This doesn't seem to be about SL at all and just a rant about the most recent election. SL is extremely LGBT+ friendly and always has been, with many employees being LGBT+ themselves.